No it isn't. The pageant does. Society doesn't because women do that every day and still maintain their previous stature. Social conservatives do, and that's where pageantry has derived its value system from... society passed and social conservatives of now.

Wed May 06, 2009 3:14 pm

futuristxen

Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19377
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt

redball wrote: These photos are no different than Limbaugh's Oxycontin or A-Rod's roids. They were dug up because she's newsworthy and someone wants to destroy her. Her sexuality isn't the issue, because if it weren't against the rules of the contest we wouldn't be talking about them.

And I did make, more or less, the point that the photo itself is a non-issue and irrelevant besides how it is against the rules.

These photos really don't violate the rules though, but the story is trying to play out on some vanessa williams ruined woman shit. The guy releasing the photos sounds like some sort of Batman villian "I will release a photo a day until you cave to my demands....muahahahahaha". THAT guy is gross and reprehensible. And why enable that tactic/viewpoint?

And I like how a picture of a woman's back, in her underwear from when she was 17, is on the same level as illegal drug abuse.

What you're not understanding here Redball, is that yes this is being done because it makes a lot of people money to both build her up, and destroy her--but what I'm saying is that this particular way of destroying her is a common tactic used in discrediting women on the national scene. The implication of these stories is always that because of how she looks and expresses her femaleness, her points are not valid. Which is not correct. If she was an advocate for gay marriage, and was the most eloquent speaker ever on the topic--these same tactics would be being used against her, and people would still be engaging them as if they had some merit. It's fucked up. The way this was originally presented in this thread, was quite sinister I thought, and I think the people on this board at least, should be above that level of discourse. That she has pics where she exposes her back to a camera, or has fake boobs--does nothing whatsoever to discredit or even address that she described gay marriage as "opposite marriage" while explaining her opposition to it.

Rather than feed people salaciously sexualized stories to lower the discourse, and try and ruin this woman's life--a more enlightened society, might have thought to have the discussion about Christianity as it relates to homosexuality. Because there are christian viewpoints out there that are pro-gay marriage. In fact, the week this happened, Perez Hilton was asking diffrent prominent hollywood christians their take on the issue. And most were pro-gay marriage. Miley Cyrus for instance went out of her way to express her support for gay marriage, and explain how it tied in with her christian beliefs.

I just feel there was enough in what she said, to just deal with her on those terms, without trying to destroy her peresonally, especially in a manner that sends out all of these fucked up messages about what is right or wrong about a young woman's body.

Wed May 06, 2009 3:26 pm

icarus502kung-pwn master

Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 11291
Location: ann arbor

Society "as a whole" does not demand that women get boob jobs or participate in beauty competitions. In fact, truth be told, not even straight men demand beauty competitions. Gay men are another story, though. (Why do you think Perez Hilton was a judge of the Miss USA pageant in the first place?)

Wed May 06, 2009 3:28 pm

futuristxen

Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19377
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt

redball wrote: No it isn't. The pageant does. Society doesn't because women do that every day and still maintain their previous stature. Social conservatives do, and that's where pageantry has derived its value system from... society passed and social conservatives of now.

Oh yeah, sorry. I forgot that Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan. and Brittney Spears were all part of beauty pageants.

Miley Cyrus did these pics for Vanity fair when she was 15, and her career was very nearly ended. And she didn't even have to enter a pageant to do it, let alone say anything controversial about gay marriage.

Wed May 06, 2009 3:33 pm

icarus502kung-pwn master

Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 11291
Location: ann arbor

The Miley Cyrus example, though, seems to go against your point. To the extent that her career was nearly ended is because people, wrongheaded people, rejected the notion that Miley should be sexualized. She's like the new paragon of girlhood and people don't want her to be understood as sexual AT ALL, even though she obviously is. Hence those photos caused an uproar, as did Jamie Foxx's comments and so will Eminem's.

Wed May 06, 2009 3:43 pm

redball

Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 6878
Location: Northern New Jersey

futuristxen wrote: These photos really don't violate the rules though, but the story is trying to play out on some vanessa williams ruined woman shit. The guy releasing the photos sounds like some sort of Batman villian "I will release a photo a day until you cave to my demands....muahahahahaha". THAT guy is gross and reprehensible. And why enable that tactic/viewpoint?

They potentially do violate the rules. Enough to be reviewed.

futuristxen wrote: And I like how a picture of a woman's back, in her underwear from when she was 17, is on the same level as illegal drug abuse.

That is so completely beside my point. I can only say fuck you for manipulating my words. Really, really fucking weak. To respond, perhaps Bill Clinton's sex scandals and John Edwards affair are better corollaries. The point is that men and women who are in the public eye get this treatment, it's occasionally sexist but only when it is. Being subjected to public scrutiny is not inherently sexists.

futuristxen wrote: What you're not understanding here Redball, is that yes this is being done because it makes a lot of people money to both build her up, and destroy her--but what I'm saying is that this particular way of destroying her is a common tactic used in discrediting women on the national scene. The implication of these stories is always that because of how she looks and expresses her femaleness, her points are not valid. Which is not correct. If she was an advocate for gay marriage, and was the most eloquent speaker ever on the topic--these same tactics would be being used against her, and people would still be engaging them as if they had some merit. It's fucked up. The way this was originally presented in this thread, was quite sinister I thought, and I think the people on this board at least, should be above that level of discourse. That she has pics where she exposes her back to a camera, or has fake boobs--does nothing whatsoever to discredit or even address that she described gay marriage as "opposite marriage" while explaining her opposition to it.

Except, I don't believe that is what's happening here... AT ALL. The point of this is to strip her of her title so that it is clear that her viewpoints do not represent that title. I think that's what's happening here. If it weren't against the rules this would be a non-issue for someone whose career is basically modeling.

futuristxen wrote: Rather than feed people salaciously sexualized stories to lower the discourse, and try and ruin this woman's life--a more enlightened society, might have thought to have the discussion about Christianity as it relates to homosexuality. Because there are christian viewpoints out there that are pro-gay marriage. In fact, the week this happened, Perez Hilton was asking diffrent prominent hollywood christians their take on the issue. And most were pro-gay marriage. Miley Cyrus for instance went out of her way to express her support for gay marriage, and explain how it tied in with her christian beliefs.

I just feel there was enough in what she said, to just deal with her on those terms, without trying to destroy her peresonally, especially in a manner that sends out all of these fucked up messages about what is right or wrong about a young woman's body.

This may be true. In fact, it is true. Except we don't live in such a society. So it's going to happen. That doesn't mean that we should sit on the sides and act like it isn't. And sometimes it's just good to enjoy when bad things happen to bad people, even when it's for a bad reason.

As for Miley Cyrus... that's a separate issue. I would not support ending her career over that. It doesn't break any rules, because there aren't really any rules for that. Of course, that's one of those cases where she chose to work for the shitty Disney corporation, which does not itself represent society.

Wed May 06, 2009 3:46 pm

futuristxen

Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19377
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt

icarus502 wrote: Society "as a whole" does not demand that women get boob jobs or participate in beauty competitions.

But what I was talking about initially was more about values, and the conflicting forces at play in the politics of a woman's body and self. We're still very much operating on a fucked up puritanical system of how women should act, and what is acceptable in terms of expression, I think. At least when it comes to figures in our media. We want them to hint at some kind of repressed kinkiness, without ever actually revealing anything. We want Brittney Spears in the school girl outfit, fresh out of the Mickey Mouse club, talking about how much she loves jesus. We don't want to know if she has fake boobs, but if we do know, then we want to scorn her, for what is basically just playing the game.

It's an impossible standard to toe.

I mean look at Michelle Obama and all of the feathers she's been ruffling, just by being the first lady, and going bare armed?

While I do feel society is making progress, I don't feel we are there yet, in terms of having a mature perspective on the female body, and I don't feel that stories such as this do anything progressive for anyone. The lesson being taught to young girls with this story is not that it's not acceptabel to be against gay marriage in the manner in which Miss CA expressed it--no the lesson being taught is if you get a fake boob job, don't ever let anyone know, because while it's good to have big boobs, it's bad to have them be fake--and then the other lesson is that you should always be covered up completely in any sort of photos that exist of you in your entire life, because if not, some internet guy is going to post the pictures as some sort of weird social blackmail. I find the messages of these attacks on her, to be anti-women, on a very base level. I'm surprised you don't, I guess.

Wed May 06, 2009 3:47 pm

futuristxen

Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19377
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt

icarus502 wrote: The Miley Cyrus example, though, seems to go against your point. To the extent that her career was nearly ended is because people, wrongheaded people, rejected the notion that Miley should be sexualized. She's like the new paragon of girlhood and people don't want her to be understood as sexual AT ALL, even though she obviously is. Hence those photos caused an uproar, as did Jamie Foxx's comments and so will Eminem's.

Yeah, but that's the exact same paragon being used here both for the pageant, and people posting these stories on the internet.

The narrative in both is that the female body should retain a girlish purity for as long as possible, even within the context of a pageant that has a swimsuit competition. Before ascending to a motherly sainthood later in life, after one has successfully subjugated themselves to some man who through marriage hastens that transition.

Like I said before, the next wave of these stories is probably going to be an ex lover talking about the sex he had with Miss CA.

Wed May 06, 2009 3:54 pm

icarus502kung-pwn master

Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 11291
Location: ann arbor

Really, I don't think that's what's up here. The lesson being taught to everyone is "If you're a public bigot, and you have skeletons in your closet, people will try to ruin you." Which is a lesson I like. This boob job stuff, it's not what's hot in the streets. It's the "opposite marriage" stuff that has anyone giving a shit. Only, a large portion of those who give a shit about beauty pageants happen to be people who are largely in favor of "opposite marriage," i.e. women and (especially) gay men. And it's not a good look for anybody to be talk like that in this environment, and especially not people whose bread and butter depends on the women and gays of California.

You know what this is more like than Brittney or anybody? That guy who was the director of the musical theatre of Sacramento (or wherever) who gave money to Prop 8. Once it got out, obviously dude was SOL. And good, because fuck him.

Wed May 06, 2009 3:57 pm

futuristxen

Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19377
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt

redball wrote:

futuristxen wrote: These photos really don't violate the rules though, but the story is trying to play out on some vanessa williams ruined woman shit. The guy releasing the photos sounds like some sort of Batman villian "I will release a photo a day until you cave to my demands....muahahahahaha". THAT guy is gross and reprehensible. And why enable that tactic/viewpoint?

They potentially do violate the rules. Enough to be reviewed.

oooo "enough to be reviewed"!!! SCANDALOUS!!!

Quote:

futuristxen wrote: And I like how a picture of a woman's back, in her underwear from when she was 17, is on the same level as illegal drug abuse.

That is so completely beside my point. I can only say fuck you for manipulating my words. Really, really fucking weak. To respond, perhaps Bill Clinton's sex scandals and John Edwards affair are better corollaries. The point is that men and women who are in the public eye get this treatment, it's occasionally sexist but only when it is. Being subjected to public scrutiny is not inherently sexists.

Oh. So posing with your uncovered back to a camera when you're 17, is on the same level as cheating on your wife, in your 50s when you are running for president, or are president? And in one case your wife with cancer! Give me a break. None of your equivilencies add up. There is no equivalency in society to the bizarre loopity-loops we make women in the public eye do for their bodies. The lines that people like Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton, and Brittney Spears have to toe, are completely diffrent than the lines that any men in the public eye have to toe.

Quote:

futuristxen wrote: What you're not understanding here Redball, is that yes this is being done because it makes a lot of people money to both build her up, and destroy her--but what I'm saying is that this particular way of destroying her is a common tactic used in discrediting women on the national scene. The implication of these stories is always that because of how she looks and expresses her femaleness, her points are not valid. Which is not correct. If she was an advocate for gay marriage, and was the most eloquent speaker ever on the topic--these same tactics would be being used against her, and people would still be engaging them as if they had some merit. It's fucked up. The way this was originally presented in this thread, was quite sinister I thought, and I think the people on this board at least, should be above that level of discourse. That she has pics where she exposes her back to a camera, or has fake boobs--does nothing whatsoever to discredit or even address that she described gay marriage as "opposite marriage" while explaining her opposition to it.

Except, I don't believe that is what's happening here... AT ALL. The point of this is to strip her of her title so that it is clear that her viewpoints do not represent that title. I think that's what's happening here. If it weren't against the rules this would be a non-issue for someone whose career is basically modeling.

You just said it right there. The point of this is to strip her of her title so that it's clear her viewpoints don't represent that title. If she did not have these viewpoints, people would not be trying to destroy her. And rather than try and strip her BECAUSE of her viewpoints. We're trying to strip her because she violated some fake confused morality about what a woman can and can't show of her body. It's completely gross. Attack her for being a bigotted idiot. But don't attack her with this fake morality that has been used against women for ages(Vanessa Williams, say hello). It demeans you and anyone else on your side.

Quote:

futuristxen wrote: Rather than feed people salaciously sexualized stories to lower the discourse, and try and ruin this woman's life--a more enlightened society, might have thought to have the discussion about Christianity as it relates to homosexuality. Because there are christian viewpoints out there that are pro-gay marriage. In fact, the week this happened, Perez Hilton was asking diffrent prominent hollywood christians their take on the issue. And most were pro-gay marriage. Miley Cyrus for instance went out of her way to express her support for gay marriage, and explain how it tied in with her christian beliefs.

I just feel there was enough in what she said, to just deal with her on those terms, without trying to destroy her peresonally, especially in a manner that sends out all of these fucked up messages about what is right or wrong about a young woman's body.

This may be true. In fact, it is true. Except we don't live in such a society. So it's going to happen. That doesn't mean that we should sit on the sides and act like it isn't. And sometimes it's just good to enjoy when bad things happen to bad people, even when it's for a bad reason.

I don't know that she's a bad person. I know that she's got a viewpoint on gay marriage that I find reprehensible. But within the context of her life, I don't know that that it in and of itself makes her a bad person. Good people can believe bad things. In fact, they quite often do.

Quote:
As for Miley Cyrus... that's a separate issue. I would not support ending her career over that. It doesn't break any rules, because there aren't really any rules for that. Of course, that's one of those cases where she chose to work for the shitty Disney corporation, which does not itself represent society.

Disney was just reacting to the societal uproar. All Disney cares about is their bottom line. And that's why Miley Cyrus is still on Disney, despite the photos. They made her trot out an apology, and promise to never do anything like it ever again(ostensibly because they didn't want her to become like Lindsay Lohan, who is someone who I think is also unfairly maligned in ways tied very much to this notion of female purity within American societies' puritanically repressed wierdness).

Wed May 06, 2009 4:17 pm

futuristxen

Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19377
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt

icarus502 wrote: Really, I don't think that's what's up here. The lesson being taught to everyone is "If you're a public bigot, and you have skeletons in your closet, people will try to ruin you." Which is a lesson I like. This boob job stuff, it's not what's hot in the streets. It's the "opposite marriage" stuff that has anyone giving a shit. Only, a large portion of those who give a shit about beauty pageants happen to be people who are largely in favor of "opposite marriage," i.e. women and (especially) gay men. And it's not a good look for anybody to be talk like that in this environment, and especially not people whose bread and butter depends on the women and gays of California.

Right, I agree with you that the reason pageant people are diving all over the place to try and oust her is because unlike how Redball views the pageant, it's not the social conservatives who drive the pagaent demographic. That ad revenue is predominantly coming from gay men, and the Miss America pageant can't afford to have it's pageant characterized as anti-gay. On that point, we're in agreement, and I've said that from the start of this thread, that that was what was going on on that side of it.

Where I disagree with you, is on the first point. Those pictures that we've seen so far--they aren't skeletons in the closet. Neither is a boob job. Those type of things--we should be far enough along as a society, that they are not seen as racy or embarrassing. Why should she have to feel embarrassed about either of those two things? Why should she have to apologize for either? To me, those are outgrowths of notions of what are acceptable ways to attack women in the public eye. Which almost always entails going after the body. Because when you attack a woman's body in the newspapers, you get the double whammy, of playing to your sexually repressed readers, AND you get to destroy a woman's character. It's kind of a daily double in terms of fucked up outmoded media attacks. To the point of cliche.

Wed May 06, 2009 4:26 pm

redball

Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 6878
Location: Northern New Jersey

futuristxen wrote: Oh. So posing with your uncovered back to a camera when you're 17, is on the same level as cheating on your wife, in your 50s when you are running for president, or are president? And in one case your wife with cancer! Give me a break. None of your equivilencies add up. There is no equivalency in society to the bizarre loopity-loops we make women in the public eye do for their bodies. The lines that people like Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton, and Brittney Spears have to toe, are completely diffrent than the lines that any men in the public eye have to toe.

You are being so unreasonably dense here. The point isn't to find an absolute equivalency, it is to show that men are held to public scrutiny just as women are. This woman's problem was not that she posed like that, it was that she lied and said that she hadn't. Get it through your head.

futuristxen wrote: You just said it right there. The point of this is to strip her of her title so that it's clear her viewpoints don't represent that title. If she did not have these viewpoints, people would not be trying to destroy her. And rather than try and strip her BECAUSE of her viewpoints. We're trying to strip her because she violated some fake confused morality about what a woman can and can't show of her body. It's completely gross. Attack her for being a bigotted idiot. But don't attack her with this fake morality that has been used against women for ages(Vanessa Williams, say hello). It demeans you and anyone else on your side.

Except her viewpoints are not her body. The rules of the contest are not her body. This has nothing to do with her body. It doesn't even have to do with morality, it has to do with the stipulations that pageant had in order to be Miss California. The entire pageant is rife with said stipulations that she knew of going in. She went and lied anyway.

futuristxen wrote: I don't know that she's a bad person. I know that she's got a viewpoint on gay marriage that I find reprehensible. But within the context of her life, I don't know that that it in and of itself makes her a bad person. Good people can believe bad things. In fact, they quite often do.

Nothing else that she's shown to the public leads me to believe that she's a good person. I'll call it a safe assumption. Besides, being stripped of the Miss California title means what exactly? Yet, to do it would send such a huge message to others.

futuristxen wrote: Disney was just reacting to the societal uproar. All Disney cares about is their bottom line. And that's why Miley Cyrus is still on Disney, despite the photos. They made her trot out an apology, and promise to never do anything like it ever again(ostensibly because they didn't want her to become like Lindsay Lohan, who is someone who I think is also unfairly maligned in ways tied very much to this notion of female purity within American societies' puritanically repressed wierdness).

If that's so it's due to a subset of society that they created/support. It isn't society as a whole. I'm sure that if you did a public opinion poll you would get just as many people who responded, "Miley Who?" as you would people who know about those pictures. Beyond that, only a portion of those who know of the pictures would care. I don't think society is as puritanical as you believe, perhaps it is in your area, though.

BUT... the situation is still different because there was no rule or contractual obligation against her doing that. That makes it dramatically different than this situation because THE ONLY REASON IT MATTERS IS IT VIOLATED THE RULES. No one cares that she posed topless like that, unlike with Miley. No one. They only care in the context that it was against the rules of the contest. It's the most important part of this because we wouldn't be discussing it otherwise. Any argument must take that into account.

Wed May 06, 2009 8:07 pm

futuristxen

Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19377
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt

redball wrote:
You are being so unreasonably dense here. The point isn't to find an absolute equivalency, it is to show that men are held to public scrutiny just as women are. This woman's problem was not that she posed like that, it was that she lied and said that she hadn't. Get it through your head.

But men AREN'T held to the same kind of public scrutiny women are. If a woman does something wrong, or disagreeable in the public eye, she is attacked as a woman. If Colin Ferrell says he hates gay people, no one attacks his manhood. But if Miss CA says she doesn't support Opposite marriage, suddenly there are reports about fake boob jobs, and someone leaking pictures of her body under the context of her doing something wrong, not related to what she said. And I should somewhat couch that in saying that by men, I mean specifically white heterosexual men.

And again, the only "crime" this girl has committed was having an upopular viewpoint expressed in a very dumb way.

Quote:
Except her viewpoints are not her body. The rules of the contest are not her body. This has nothing to do with her body. It doesn't even have to do with morality, it has to do with the stipulations that pageant had in order to be Miss California. The entire pageant is rife with said stipulations that she knew of going in. She went and lied anyway.

This would not even be called into question, had she not expressed unpopular viewpoints. Those pictures haven't been deemed to violate pageant rules. Those pictures are not any different than the kind that are mailed to millions of American homes in the victoria secret catalogue every single day. You're trying to paint this as Vanessa Williams posing for Playboy, when it's not. And the reason you're trying to paint it that was is because you don't agree with what she said. Why not just go after what she said? Why go after her personally like this and try to pretend like there is anything damaging or hypocritical about those pictures? And what if she had done porn? None of that would invalidate what she had to say whatsoever.

Quote: Nothing else that she's shown to the public leads me to believe that she's a good person. I'll call it a safe assumption. Besides, being stripped of the Miss California title means what exactly? Yet, to do it would send such a huge message to others.

I'm not even worried about that. If they strip her of her title, it's because they wanted to do it after what she said, which just gives more power to what she said. I think it's dumb, but whatever. I do think that the way in which she is being attacked is part of a larger media behavior towards women, and the perverse glee that people have with putting these articles and pictures out, I find disgusting.

I mean, take Sarah Palin--less than a day after she was picked for VP, there were pictures(on this forum even) of her photoshopped head on a girl in an american flag bikini. And at first people didn't know if they were real or not, and if they were, they were supposed to invalidate her as a politician. Meanwhile pics of Obama in a swimming suit that were real didn't really affect anything or cause an uproar.

I do not believe that women have an equal standing in terms of media treatment when it comes to being heard. And that's the crux of our disagreement. You think that they definitely do. I think they don't. And no matter how many examples I give you, you always have some sort of rationalization for it.

Which. Whatever. I'm sure you have your reasons.

Quote:
If that's so it's due to a subset of society that they created/support. It isn't society as a whole. I'm sure that if you did a public opinion poll you would get just as many people who responded, "Miley Who?" as you would people who know about those pictures. Beyond that, only a portion of those who know of the pictures would care. I don't think society is as puritanical as you believe, perhaps it is in your area, though.

BUT... the situation is still different because there was no rule or contractual obligation against her doing that. That makes it dramatically different than this situation because THE ONLY REASON IT MATTERS IS IT VIOLATED THE RULES. No one cares that she posed topless like that, unlike with Miley. No one. They only care in the context that it was against the rules of the contest. It's the most important part of this because we wouldn't be discussing it otherwise. Any argument must take that into account.

Case in point. You're hiding behind the argument that it's just about the rules man! Arbitrary rules that she didn't break mind you. But none of the headlines being posted here are "Miss CA, didn't break any rules". They are "Miss CA RACY PHOTOS! FILM AT ELEVEN!!"

I wish she was saying a viewpoint you believed in, so you could swap your view around 180 degrees. It would be awesome.

Wed May 06, 2009 8:59 pm

redball

Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 6878
Location: Northern New Jersey

Read the article again, it specifically says that the photo is likely in violation of the rules.

Also, I was never talking about the media's reaction to this. I was talking about the forum's reaction. If you're not going to separate what I've said from what the media has then you'll never understand anything I've said. I think it's pretty offensive for the forum to be lumped in with the media like that.

But... however the media spins it, it still wouldn't be a story if it didn't potentially violate the rules.

I still maintain that men are subjected to similar media scrutiny. If absolutely nothing else, they are subjected to similar scrutiny as has been displayed in this thread.

futuristxen wrote:

Quote:
Except her viewpoints are not her body. The rules of the contest are not her body. This has nothing to do with her body. It doesn't even have to do with morality, it has to do with the stipulations that pageant had in order to be Miss California. The entire pageant is rife with said stipulations that she knew of going in. She went and lied anyway.

This would not even be called into question, had she not expressed unpopular viewpoints. Those pictures haven't been deemed to violate pageant rules. Those pictures are not any different than the kind that are mailed to millions of American homes in the victoria secret catalogue every single day. You're trying to paint this as Vanessa Williams posing for Playboy, when it's not. And the reason you're trying to paint it that was is because you don't agree with what she said. Why not just go after what she said? Why go after her personally like this and try to pretend like there is anything damaging or hypocritical about those pictures? And what if she had done porn? None of that would invalidate what she had to say whatsoever.

Towards the end of this you ask a bunch of questions. Are you asking me or the media? If you're asking me then I wonder if you've actually read anything I've written because it flies in the face of everything I've expressed in this thread.

Honestly, I can't tell when you're arguing against me, the media, or the straw man anymore. I don't have the patience to try to sort it out and respond. If you think you've been arguing against me then it's especially futile because you keep taking it to viewpoints that I don't hold and have given no indication of holding. It's not worth it. She's not worth it. Joe the Plumber was more interesting.

Wed May 06, 2009 9:12 pm

futuristxen

Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19377
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt

Redball...it's become very clear to me in your last few responses that you really don't know what you're saying. The reason it may seem to you like I'm hitting on diffrent areas in addressing you, is because your own viewpoint has been all over the map. One minute you're talking about the forum here, the next minute you're talking about the media as a whole, and then in another minute, you're acting personally offended. And then you say that you're not doing those things, right before you do them yet again.

You say you're just talking about this forum's reaction, and then you go "BUUUUUUT...the media did this because of that".

I've been principally talking about how the media is treating this woman, mixed in with a larger narrative about what the media does to women as a whole. This forum only enters into it, where you've been seeking to justify what the media is doing, and in some sort of bizarro world craziness attempted to justify what the media is doing.

I'm not for certain, but I feel like you've done this kind of thing before, as it pertains to gender politics in the media.

Why do you at your base feel that men and women are viewed and treated equally in the media? Do you concede that men and women have ever been treated unequally in the media? If so, when did the equality happen, and what do you think defines that change?